Designating portions of Hong Kong's country parks for residential development as a solution to the SAR's chronic housing problem is hardly a novel idea. But those who share provisional legislator Dr Raymond Ho Chung-tai's enthusiasm in speedily scrapping part of our green belt are certainly in the minority. Dr Ho expected the opposition from green groups but suggested pragmatism and Hong Kong people's overall well-being should also be considered. In his view, the Government needs to move quickly to find as much land as possible. Country parks are a ready option. No one will dispute that Hong Kong needs to identify sufficient sites to meet housing targets. First we must ask whether we are yet so desperate to sacrifice part of our country parks, no matter how small the sites involved. According to government statistics, we have not reached the stage that would justify invading our green zone. At the end of March last year, Hong Kong had 17,500 hectares developed land, of which 4,300 hectares was residential land. But there was also an equal amount of vacant development land. What does vacant development land mean? Are they sites that can be turned into either public or private housing immediately? Or are they sites suitable for other uses but have yet to be worked on? When we talk about shortage of land, it is obvious that we can explore how these vacant development sites can help before we turn our eyes to the green belt. Dr Ho may have a genuine concern that Hong Kong cannot cope with a potential population explosion and believe that planning ahead is the only answer to avoid any chaos. But in trying to solve a practical and urgent problem, it is important that he does not lose sight of Hong Kong's overall needs. Those who support the idea of developing the country parks maintain that this is the easiest option - the land available is vast and the Government can quickly develop the sites without having to go through the painful negotiation of land acquisition. They may also say that those who want to get a bit of fresh air at the weekend can go to neighbouring Shenzhen or Zhuhai. Certainly, they will share Dr Ho's view that Hong Kong does not need so much green land. They are forgetting that apart from housing millions of residents, Hong Kong, as a modern society, has to take care of its inhabitants' other needs. Perhaps it is true that a lot of people either never go to the country parks or only visit them once every two or three years. But if we believe government statistics, more than 10 million people visit country parks every year. That is not a small number. Our schools need them for various education purposes and our workforce, especially those who are not well-off enough to afford holidays elsewhere and other forms of entertainment, visit them for weekend relaxation. Dr Ho can say that he suggested taking just a small portion of the green zone - about 10 per cent of the existing country park land - for development. Those who oppose this approach are concerned about what would happen once the floodgate was opened. The urban area of Hong Kong is already a concrete jungle and over the past two decades, we have seen it rapidly expand into our rural areas. We do not want it to further spread into our country parks without good and credible reason. There are other ways to speed up the construction of flats, such as cutting bureaucratic red-tape and making administration more organised and efficient in planning and processing land. Before all these options are exhausted, the call for developing country parks is totally unwarranted.